Could you please help me with the following (all from De Ira):
1. et potiones vix honestas natalibus liberorum podagricus senex hauriebat (De Ira, 2.33.4)
Could you give a literal translation?
2. Dignus fuit cui permitteretur a conuiuio (De Ira, 2.33.6)
Does “dingus fuit cui …” mean “he deserved to …”? Dat. cui is due to “dingus”.
3. Contra ille se laetum et oblitum … praestitit (De Ira, 2.33.6)
Is “se laetum et oblitum [esse]” accu. + inf. clause after “praestiti”?
4. Ne irascamur inimicorum et hostium liberis, inter Sullanae crudelitatis exempla est, … (De Ira, 2.34.3)
What is the meaning of “inter”?
1.Here’s the literal translation of “…et potiones vix honestas natalibus liberorum podagricus senex hauriebat..” (Seneca, De Ira, 2.33.4): “…and the old gouty man (et… podagricus senex) drank (hauriebat) beverages (potiones) scarcely/hardly (vix) suitable (honestas, agreeing with “potiones” depending on “hauriebat”) for the birthdays (natalibus, dative of Purpose of “natales, natalium”, literally “days of birth”) of [his ] children (liberorum)…”, i.e.:“…and the old gouty man drank glasses of wine wich would have been scarcely suitable for the birthday of one of his children”, just in the sense that the poor old man had to hold his glasse up and then drink from it as a celebration of the birthday of one of his children. In short, he was forced to drink a toast which would have been scarcely suitable even on the birthday of one of his children.
2. In “Dignus fuit cui permitteretur a conuiuio…discedere ” (De Ira, 2.33.6) literally meaning “He would have been worthy (dignus fuit) that to him (cui, relative pronoun , dative depending on the impersonal construction “permitteretur”as a part of the relative clause depending on “dignus”) it was permitted (permitteretur) to go away (discedere) from the banquet (a convivio)…”, i.e.: “He deserved to be permitted to leave the banquet..”
So, “dignus fuit …” means “he deserved to …” and the dative “ cui “ is due to “permitteretur”, not to “dignus”.
3. In “ Contra ille se laetum et oblitum quid eo actum esset die praestitit (De Ira, 2.33.6) literally meaning “On the other hand (contra) he (ille) showed (praestitit) himself (se) happy (laetum, predicte adjective) and oblivious (oblitum, past participle used as a predicate adjective)” what (quid) had been done (actum esset) that (eo) day (die)”, “se laetum et oblitum ” is not an accu. + inf. clause after “praestiti”.
As you can see, in fact, the verb “praestitit” takes the direct object “se” in the accusative followed by the predicate adjectives “laetum et oblitum” in the accusative as they refer to “se”.
4. In “ Ne irascamur inimicorum et hostium liberis, inter Sullanae crudelitatis exempla est, … (De Ira, 2.34.3) the meaning of the preposition “inter” is “among”, since “inter Sullanae crudelitatis exempla est quod ab re publica liberos proscriptorum submovit” literally means:” among (inter, preposition which takes the accusative) the examples (exempla) of Sulla's cruelty (Sullanae crudelitatis) there is (est) the fact that (quod) he removed (submovit) from the state (ab re publica) the children (liberos) of the proscribed (proscriptorum)”